Furlough estimate
05-20-2020, 09:34 PM
#651
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2008
Position: 787 Captain
Posts: 1,512
dude, what am I trying to give away. Please quote me.
answer any one of the points I’ve made. I gave a list and your return is a snark about core4, yet I’m uniformed?
I’m ready to have my mind changed but there’s a real scarcity of concrete reasons why this is bad other than it will be harder financially in the short term.
I have never expressed a desire to change anything in the UPA. Has anybody? We’ve all been around enough to understand that’s a terrible idea. if nothing else, tell us how a LOA for temporary lower guarantee will be used against us post Covid.
answer any one of the points I’ve made. I gave a list and your return is a snark about core4, yet I’m uniformed?
I’m ready to have my mind changed but there’s a real scarcity of concrete reasons why this is bad other than it will be harder financially in the short term.
I have never expressed a desire to change anything in the UPA. Has anybody? We’ve all been around enough to understand that’s a terrible idea. if nothing else, tell us how a LOA for temporary lower guarantee will be used against us post Covid.
05-20-2020, 09:39 PM
#652
Banned
Joined APC: Apr 2020
Posts: 55
1. lots of people who lived through the strike at CAL said that about scabs. I flew with many CAL 95-01 hires (pre CAL being desirable) who were legit union dudes who said exactly that. And for all the forum chest thumping about scabs I rarely see guys at the briefing tables treating slick ties any differently. Always been a pet peeve of mine
Yup, happens all the time. LCAL even had a scab as the head of Professional Standards right up until the merger. Not joking.
05-20-2020, 10:01 PM
#653
You look like a nail
Joined APC: May 2012
Posts: 451
What you’re proposing is a concession, and no, you don’t have to change your mind. The irony is you’re pedaling give aways and calling everyone who doesn’t agree a scab. Rich.
05-21-2020, 04:59 AM
#654
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2013
Position: 737/FO
Posts: 195
He wants to know why... I’ll try and those with more experience and knowledge can refine or redirect me if you see error in my logic.
Duvee, I don’t mind hearing a discussion, and I do find the hardline quotes a little dismissive considering this is a forum for discussion. Associating scab to anyone here defending the UPA is 100 percent BS!!!! A person can have empathy for others and still know they are unable to prevent what’s coming. Their attitudes likely comes from tough life experience experience and is hard wired, especially when burned 2 times before and they have earned every right to distrust management motives. Quite frankly I believe segments within management are specifically looking for ways to leverage this situation to their long-term benefit. It’s what they do, we are a liability, they would kick half of us to the curb tomorrow if they could fly single pilot ops. They are not our friend and never will be, it’s just the nature of the relationship between labor and management.
Since you ask for a “why not” I offer this... because the company will likely staff for the busy season, probably using a best guess for summer 2021 staffing. So that number will be easily higher than pilots required in Oct 2020 And so then over the fall winter when it’s normally slow anyway, the protections we gain via the UPA against “seasonal furlough” by way of duty rig and MPG are only saving the company money should we lower MPG during that period. It won’t prevent extra furloughs it will only cost those still here money.
If this is a fast economic recovery the company can easily return furloughed pilots to flying status. They will find a motivated group of pilots who won’t need “extra training” like those being displaced. Mostly because they’ll be excited to come back to an intact UPA.
Also, if United has to go to BK court, the powers that be will see what we as a United Pilot Group were and we’re NOT willing to accept for work conditions.
And I, as a 2016 hire, will most certainly be furloughed. I hope for a vaccine or something to enable confidence for people to safely return. Until then I will be grateful for the 6 months to build savings and have already started working plans for a furlough job. This too shall pass!
Duvee, I don’t mind hearing a discussion, and I do find the hardline quotes a little dismissive considering this is a forum for discussion. Associating scab to anyone here defending the UPA is 100 percent BS!!!! A person can have empathy for others and still know they are unable to prevent what’s coming. Their attitudes likely comes from tough life experience experience and is hard wired, especially when burned 2 times before and they have earned every right to distrust management motives. Quite frankly I believe segments within management are specifically looking for ways to leverage this situation to their long-term benefit. It’s what they do, we are a liability, they would kick half of us to the curb tomorrow if they could fly single pilot ops. They are not our friend and never will be, it’s just the nature of the relationship between labor and management.
Since you ask for a “why not” I offer this... because the company will likely staff for the busy season, probably using a best guess for summer 2021 staffing. So that number will be easily higher than pilots required in Oct 2020 And so then over the fall winter when it’s normally slow anyway, the protections we gain via the UPA against “seasonal furlough” by way of duty rig and MPG are only saving the company money should we lower MPG during that period. It won’t prevent extra furloughs it will only cost those still here money.
If this is a fast economic recovery the company can easily return furloughed pilots to flying status. They will find a motivated group of pilots who won’t need “extra training” like those being displaced. Mostly because they’ll be excited to come back to an intact UPA.
Also, if United has to go to BK court, the powers that be will see what we as a United Pilot Group were and we’re NOT willing to accept for work conditions.
And I, as a 2016 hire, will most certainly be furloughed. I hope for a vaccine or something to enable confidence for people to safely return. Until then I will be grateful for the 6 months to build savings and have already started working plans for a furlough job. This too shall pass!
05-21-2020, 05:51 AM
#655
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: WB Bunkie
Posts: 1,246
Thank you guys for explaining the threat in a more conciliatory way than I deserved.
BMEP, I’ve got no beef with CAL guys, but it’s understandably hard to stay fired up about scabs when 1/3 of the guys you see are scabs. You’d give yourself a coronary. I’m not sure what seat you were in, but maybe that has something to do with your perception. What I found is that it ended up being an eye-roll most of time: “yup... he’s a scab alright...”
The potential model you describes makes a lot of sense and I completely understand why that would be obviously undesirable post COVID, and also Potentially beneficial to the company. Thank you for taking the time to explain that to me, I have family in the airline industry, but do not have a lot of knowledge, aside from reading some of the literature, to the early post deregulation world. I guess perhaps the most important place we part ways, is that with the cost of insurance and Wall Street pushing airlines to maintain higher margins, which means you utilizing fixed-cost assets more year-round, I guess I just don’t see the same desire as the airlines used to have for “seasonal labor.”
AXL16 I normally enjoy your posts. However, I don’t really think your argument is a slam dunk… Our UPA could easily have 67 or 74 hours as the minimum guarantee… It’s just an arbitrary number that we could/would work around. For me to spend hours doing math for all different kinds daily pay values (3.25 VAC, 4.085 RSV, 3.75 TRN, etc) pro-rated to a 55 hour month (as an example) would be time better spent elsewhere.... but it’s hardly rocket science. Is that the point you were making, or am I missing something?
as to the most egregious of my hyperbolic statements, I want to readily agree that many people who do not support lower guarantee are doing so from a completely altruistic place. That said, it feels like there is a large subset in the group who just do not want to take a pay cut on top of a pay cut. I am so Junior In my seat without the desire to commute, that things would have had to go back to normal already for me to have a chance to keep my seat. Looking forward, I think even in a great recovery, we will not be at 100% for quite a few years to come. It looks to me like we were in a bit of a bubble. I obviously hope I’m wrong.
I am open to the idea that lowering guarantee is bad, but at this point it still seems like a small chance that the company could use it against us down the line, with a much larger, more tangible certainty that we will put guys/gals on the street that don’t need to be there.
BMEP, I’ve got no beef with CAL guys, but it’s understandably hard to stay fired up about scabs when 1/3 of the guys you see are scabs. You’d give yourself a coronary. I’m not sure what seat you were in, but maybe that has something to do with your perception. What I found is that it ended up being an eye-roll most of time: “yup... he’s a scab alright...”
The potential model you describes makes a lot of sense and I completely understand why that would be obviously undesirable post COVID, and also Potentially beneficial to the company. Thank you for taking the time to explain that to me, I have family in the airline industry, but do not have a lot of knowledge, aside from reading some of the literature, to the early post deregulation world. I guess perhaps the most important place we part ways, is that with the cost of insurance and Wall Street pushing airlines to maintain higher margins, which means you utilizing fixed-cost assets more year-round, I guess I just don’t see the same desire as the airlines used to have for “seasonal labor.”
AXL16 I normally enjoy your posts. However, I don’t really think your argument is a slam dunk… Our UPA could easily have 67 or 74 hours as the minimum guarantee… It’s just an arbitrary number that we could/would work around. For me to spend hours doing math for all different kinds daily pay values (3.25 VAC, 4.085 RSV, 3.75 TRN, etc) pro-rated to a 55 hour month (as an example) would be time better spent elsewhere.... but it’s hardly rocket science. Is that the point you were making, or am I missing something?
as to the most egregious of my hyperbolic statements, I want to readily agree that many people who do not support lower guarantee are doing so from a completely altruistic place. That said, it feels like there is a large subset in the group who just do not want to take a pay cut on top of a pay cut. I am so Junior In my seat without the desire to commute, that things would have had to go back to normal already for me to have a chance to keep my seat. Looking forward, I think even in a great recovery, we will not be at 100% for quite a few years to come. It looks to me like we were in a bit of a bubble. I obviously hope I’m wrong.
I am open to the idea that lowering guarantee is bad, but at this point it still seems like a small chance that the company could use it against us down the line, with a much larger, more tangible certainty that we will put guys/gals on the street that don’t need to be there.
05-21-2020, 06:32 AM
#656
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2008
Position: 787 Captain
Posts: 1,512
Thank you guys for explaining the threat in a more conciliatory way than I deserved.
The potential model you describes makes a lot of sense and I completely understand why that would be obviously undesirable post COVID, and also Potentially beneficial to the company. Thank you for taking the time to explain that to me, I have family in the airline industry, but do not have a lot of knowledge, aside from reading some of the literature, to the early post deregulation world. I guess perhaps the most important place we part ways, is that with the cost of insurance and Wall Street pushing airlines to maintain higher margins, which means you utilizing fixed-cost assets more year-round, I guess I just don’t see the same desire as the airlines used to have for “seasonal labor.”
AXL16 I normally enjoy your posts. However, I don’t really think your argument is a slam dunk… Our UPA could easily have 67 or 74 hours as the minimum guarantee… It’s just an arbitrary number that we could/would work around. For me to spend hours doing math for all different kinds daily pay values (3.25 VAC, 4.085 RSV, 3.75 TRN, etc) pro-rated to a 55 hour month (as an example) would be time better spent elsewhere.... but it’s hardly rocket science. Is that the point you were making, or am I missing something?
as to the most egregious of my hyperbolic statements, I want to readily agree that many people who do not support lower guarantee are doing so from a completely altruistic place. That said, it feels like there is a large subset in the group who just do not want to take a pay cut on top of a pay cut. I am so Junior In my seat without the desire to commute, that things would have had to go back to normal already for me to have a chance to keep my seat. Looking forward, I think even in a great recovery, we will not be at 100% for quite a few years to come. It looks to me like we were in a bit of a bubble. I obviously hope I’m wrong.
I am open to the idea that lowering guarantee is bad, but at this point it still seems like a small chance that the company could use it against us down the line, with a much larger, more tangible certainty that we will put guys/gals on the street that don’t need to be there.
The potential model you describes makes a lot of sense and I completely understand why that would be obviously undesirable post COVID, and also Potentially beneficial to the company. Thank you for taking the time to explain that to me, I have family in the airline industry, but do not have a lot of knowledge, aside from reading some of the literature, to the early post deregulation world. I guess perhaps the most important place we part ways, is that with the cost of insurance and Wall Street pushing airlines to maintain higher margins, which means you utilizing fixed-cost assets more year-round, I guess I just don’t see the same desire as the airlines used to have for “seasonal labor.”
AXL16 I normally enjoy your posts. However, I don’t really think your argument is a slam dunk… Our UPA could easily have 67 or 74 hours as the minimum guarantee… It’s just an arbitrary number that we could/would work around. For me to spend hours doing math for all different kinds daily pay values (3.25 VAC, 4.085 RSV, 3.75 TRN, etc) pro-rated to a 55 hour month (as an example) would be time better spent elsewhere.... but it’s hardly rocket science. Is that the point you were making, or am I missing something?
as to the most egregious of my hyperbolic statements, I want to readily agree that many people who do not support lower guarantee are doing so from a completely altruistic place. That said, it feels like there is a large subset in the group who just do not want to take a pay cut on top of a pay cut. I am so Junior In my seat without the desire to commute, that things would have had to go back to normal already for me to have a chance to keep my seat. Looking forward, I think even in a great recovery, we will not be at 100% for quite a few years to come. It looks to me like we were in a bit of a bubble. I obviously hope I’m wrong.
I am open to the idea that lowering guarantee is bad, but at this point it still seems like a small chance that the company could use it against us down the line, with a much larger, more tangible certainty that we will put guys/gals on the street that don’t need to be there.
IMO, management is going to do whatever they have to do in order to achieve a target 'cash burn'. Hopefully we can talk PROFIT metrics again soon! They will absolutely take some things from us along the way if we allow. It would be management malpractice if they didn't TRY for concessions.
My belief (FWIW) is that Kirby wants to continue to grow the airline, take market share from AAL specifically, at least maintain a financial position that doesn't require divestiture of assets, and AVOID BK. Our contract is like all other legal obligations he has to honor. It provides fixed guardrails that they can plan around. How has the company addressed the financial & QOL parts of the current agreement that WE don't like?
My position is very basic. I don't trust any airline management team. No concessions. My union will discuss and consider any agreements that advance and/or protect the interests of the pilot group. I will review and consider any potential agreement that is placed before me. Grey areas and weak language accrue to the companies benefit. There is rarely a single concessionary agreement...another will likely follow as the company plays the long game. I don't trust any airline management team. No concessions.
*Your argument that what you propose is NOT a concession should be the focus of discussion. We need to be CRYSTAL CLEAR about what defines a concession. Voting for concessions is entirely possible if we're able to convince ourselves that they're not really concessions...
05-21-2020, 06:43 AM
#657
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2011
Position: Airbus
Posts: 505
The company would have two pilots do all the flying if they could. Or zero. Positive manpower is what they want, no?
Duvie isn’t talking about wanting to gut the contract...and you guys know that. If an airline needs 700 hours of flying and they have 10 crews that get a required 70hrs, then that’s great. If they have 350 hours they need covered, half those crews aren’t needed. The company would get rid of 5 crews, except in this case they need them for when the inevitable 500 hrs, 600...700 hrs are needed again. They’re not going to have half of those crews sit around getting paid to do nothing any longer than they have to, which is why everyone here is talking about furloughs and having this discussion. But they can spread the workload to accomplish their needed flying and keep the people employed for the INTERIM, and do so for no longer than required.
Being open to reduced ALVs does that. Nobody is talking about lowering rates, benefits, etc. We all want the current contract (or better) on the other side of this. Some other things would have to temporarily be figured out if tied to line values. Gutting the contract doesn’t accomplish anything in regards to excess people. However, with excess people you can spread the workload (reduce line values) for the time being and ramp back up as required. It’s like summer vs. low season, but on steroids and temporarily.
So many people are bent around the axle because it means they’re making less and “concessions be damned”. There are tons of people here that have been kicked in the past. Nobody wants to get burned. Seems people are steadfastly on one side or the other here. I get duvie.
Duvie isn’t talking about wanting to gut the contract...and you guys know that. If an airline needs 700 hours of flying and they have 10 crews that get a required 70hrs, then that’s great. If they have 350 hours they need covered, half those crews aren’t needed. The company would get rid of 5 crews, except in this case they need them for when the inevitable 500 hrs, 600...700 hrs are needed again. They’re not going to have half of those crews sit around getting paid to do nothing any longer than they have to, which is why everyone here is talking about furloughs and having this discussion. But they can spread the workload to accomplish their needed flying and keep the people employed for the INTERIM, and do so for no longer than required.
Being open to reduced ALVs does that. Nobody is talking about lowering rates, benefits, etc. We all want the current contract (or better) on the other side of this. Some other things would have to temporarily be figured out if tied to line values. Gutting the contract doesn’t accomplish anything in regards to excess people. However, with excess people you can spread the workload (reduce line values) for the time being and ramp back up as required. It’s like summer vs. low season, but on steroids and temporarily.
So many people are bent around the axle because it means they’re making less and “concessions be damned”. There are tons of people here that have been kicked in the past. Nobody wants to get burned. Seems people are steadfastly on one side or the other here. I get duvie.
05-21-2020, 07:04 AM
#659
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2012
Position: Guppy Capt
Posts: 151
Perfect example why you NEVER give things up. You know all those values used to be 5 hours, right? Min guarantee used to be 70. Have you noticed in the slow winter months it can hard to fly a full schedule? (Many lines built a min, 65 hours). They’ve already forced a concession on us. We were due a contract last year. Yet, during the most profitable time in airline history, we couldn’t secure contract advancements. Are you really naive enough to think we will ever get back what we give away today?
05-21-2020, 07:08 AM
#660
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: WB Bunkie
Posts: 1,246
Axl,
your points are all extremely cogent and founded in reason.
management obviously is motivated to obfuscate numbers whenever they can to extract more from us than they otherwise could… However, in the case of block hours and Manning, I truly don’t see how our interests are not aligned because of the rapidly changing demand
they do not want to furlough/re-train more people than they have to, so I don’t think we are bargaining with them to reduce furloughs. as long as our union understands that, then we are both playing chess, rather than us playing checkers and them playing a long game. Whatever minimum guarantee we would agree to, it will then dictate Manning and pilot costs they are willing to swallow for the various recovery trajectories.
I think you were absolutely right that it would be foolhardy to agree to a direct attempt to reduce forloughs.... Because they would absolutely try to tie that to some concession or believe that we had to give something to them to achieve that for ourselves. They want to reduce furloughs and training as well, so all I am saying, is that a reduction and guarantee gives them SOME flexibility to keep more bodies on property. I don’t think we would have the math, I think it is a bit of a black-box algorithm scenario, but I just don’t see how the incentives would not be aligned for this particular extremely unusual scenario.
I think the apprehension that many feel around this, would be tantamount to us just taking away guarantee altogether and allowing the company to determine how they staffed. that would obviously then lead to some bad outcomes for us because that could create misaligned incentives. If we simply drew a new floor at 55 hours, and said “do with it what you will,” we would not have to listen to their rhetoric and it would undoubtedly change staffing and going forward
your points are all extremely cogent and founded in reason.
management obviously is motivated to obfuscate numbers whenever they can to extract more from us than they otherwise could… However, in the case of block hours and Manning, I truly don’t see how our interests are not aligned because of the rapidly changing demand
they do not want to furlough/re-train more people than they have to, so I don’t think we are bargaining with them to reduce furloughs. as long as our union understands that, then we are both playing chess, rather than us playing checkers and them playing a long game. Whatever minimum guarantee we would agree to, it will then dictate Manning and pilot costs they are willing to swallow for the various recovery trajectories.
I think you were absolutely right that it would be foolhardy to agree to a direct attempt to reduce forloughs.... Because they would absolutely try to tie that to some concession or believe that we had to give something to them to achieve that for ourselves. They want to reduce furloughs and training as well, so all I am saying, is that a reduction and guarantee gives them SOME flexibility to keep more bodies on property. I don’t think we would have the math, I think it is a bit of a black-box algorithm scenario, but I just don’t see how the incentives would not be aligned for this particular extremely unusual scenario.
I think the apprehension that many feel around this, would be tantamount to us just taking away guarantee altogether and allowing the company to determine how they staffed. that would obviously then lead to some bad outcomes for us because that could create misaligned incentives. If we simply drew a new floor at 55 hours, and said “do with it what you will,” we would not have to listen to their rhetoric and it would undoubtedly change staffing and going forward
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
